Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 08, 2018

"Last year, Russia and its allies engineered a rift between truth and lies, fact and fake news, humans and bots -- and the bots are winning. They're winning because social-media firms profit from all traffic -- whatever the source -- and governments are simply too slow to counter this threat. Russian disinformation -- like its more overt Islamic State cousin -- is designed to fuel animosities and exploit existing cleavages. The people behind it are not only hate-filled but also experts on audience segmentation." -- Haroon Ullah

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gosh do we have anyone here who's views magically shift to aid Trump?

#1 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-09 12:34 AM | Reply

As in previous wars, we need a leader who is on our side, who wants to defeat the enemy. Instead, we have Trump. America simply can't win with a traitor as our President. Recognize the truth, don't be afraid of it, don't protect him because he is who you voted for. As he says, America first. He doesn't represent America first, he represents Russia first. We face a foreign power determined to undermine confidence in our democracy with a President determined to do nothing about it. I hate to say it but Mike Pence would be a better and more loyal American President.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 07:01 AM | Reply

The notion that Americans are the only decent people on the planet or that all Russians are evil is absurd. We are reminded constantly about the evil deeds of others, while our own become State secrets. Each country's propaganda is designed to caste the author in the most positive light and others negatively. This propaganda game is played by every Government on earth.

Has any virus been more sinister and effective than Stuxnet? No country has a larger dependence on digital communication and therefore greater vulnerability. The only solution, which has been offered to the USA and refused, is an International Treaty for the sake of power generation and banking. Why refuse? Because we believe our skills and resources are superior and we continue to seek global dominance. We have realized Hitler's dream while at the same time inadvertently undermining those objectives economically. Our overwhelming military advantage is undermined by abandonment of basic industries necessary for any sustained conflict. The alternative to sustained conflict is unspeakable horror. That military advantage has served no decent humanitarian purpose in Vietnam or anywhere else.

The USA is populated mostly by decent hard working people, as is every other country. Otherwise, we wouldn't be as prosperous as we are. The problem is our country is run by the most amoral vile creatures on earth, and we are not unique in that regard. The reason JFK and RFK were assassinated without any accountability for those deeds is one small piece of a puzzle, which should be and is disturbing to any decent American. These acts are rightly the reason many people no longer trust our Government. But each year more people die that remember those events, which works to the advantage of the deep State which assassinated JFK & RFK. It is consistent with a Government which operates openly on one level and secretly on another. It is consistent with the findings of the Princeton Study which used data to confirm that 90% of all legislation is written in service to the 1%. It is consistent with a world described by Aldous Huxley and to a lesser extent George Orwell, men who exhibit remarkable intelligence and insight. It is what the story of the Wizard of Oz is all about.

#3 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-09 08:39 AM | Reply

It has occurred to me man times that the reason Obama was not a more transitional President was the threat of assasination of himself or his family. He was the most "JFK"like President in my lifetime and I figure he also was the most threatened President of my lifetime. His hands were tied, how can a President act to do what he wants under the constant threat towards himself of his family? I honestly believe that is the situation he lived under and probably still does.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 09:03 AM | Reply

#1 | Posted by Tor

"Here" as in the DR? Missed the point entirely I think and I dare say there were plenty of people influenced judging from the feeds I seen on FB.

#5 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-09 09:06 AM | Reply

""Here" as in the DR? Missed the point entirely I think and I dare say there were plenty of people influenced judging from the feeds I seen on FB."

When you want serious views about foreign policy where do you look for them? Facebook? Hilarious! Realize, millions of us have opinions but we never waste a minute on Facebook. That is a place to share family photos, etc. not a serious place to discuss politics.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 09:12 AM | Reply

Has any virus been more sinister and effective than Stuxnet?

#3 | Posted by bayviking

Yes.

No country has a larger dependence on digital communication and therefore greater vulnerability.

The US is a backwater in the developed world when it comes to Digital communications.

The only solution, which has been offered to the USA and refused, is an International Treaty for the sake of power generation and banking. Why refuse? Because we believe our skills and resources are superior and we continue to seek global dominance.

Treaty? What do you know of this purposed treaty? Who has signed up? etc. Why refuse? It isn't because of your statement. Anyone who works in IT knows Defense is only so good. They also know the powers that China, NK, Russia and others have in the Cyber arena. They also know businesses and the government are not truly invested in putting up the defense possible. Etc. How does that protect us from the Propaganda wars anyhow?

Deepstate? ooooh boy...

Bay - sorry but I think you are WAY off base on this.

#7 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-09 09:15 AM | Reply

The Republican Party controls the US government and doesn't want to combat this stuff. It would cost them Congressional races and perhaps the White House.

Lets quit being coy about it.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-09 09:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Throughout history, with few exceptions, Countries have a history of compliance with treaties they sign. This will not bring criminal hacking to an end, but, unlike States, they can already be arrested for what they do and are arrested all the time already.

Way off huh? The deep State is the CIA, NSA and some intelligence branches of the military and State Department. Was anybody ever been held accountable for domestic or international crimes in those organizations? There is no doubt they are directly linked to America's drug problems in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Columbia, meaning they act as suppliers. There is no doubt they interfere in free and fair elections around the world, while whining about Russia's $150,000 campaign, as if it is unprecedented. There is no doubt they have kidnapped, tortured and assassinated hundreds of decent innocent people around the world that simply do not conform to their world view. There is no doubt they are indirectly responsible for the deaths and forced migration of millions of people around the world by perpetuating lies to start numerous unnecessary and unjustifiable wars. There is no doubt they lie constantly in order to carry out their evil deeds. Do you really think our Government has come clean on the assassinations of JFK and RFK? If so, you are naive.

We can say at least this much about digital treaties:

www.nytimes.com

#9 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-09 09:37 AM | Reply

"Do you really think our Government has come clean on the assassinations of JFK and RFK? If so, you are naive."

That you are even allowed to post that comment in this nation is an amazing show of freedom of expression not enjoyed by Russians or the Chinese. What we need to be doing is to guarantee that such freedom continues to exist while our oppressors strive to deny that we should have such rights. Ajit Pai should be held up as the poster boy of dictatorship, he should be viewed as the result of money being more important than patriotism. That one issue should be on the minds of every American despite the MSM attempts to distract us from what is really important, and they do because they will profit more when we don't have the freedom to find real information outside of the box they want to provide us with and charge us for.
Net Neutrality is not dead yet, Congress could insure its long term security, there is already a law which would enable them to do that.

"Last month, the FCC ruled to repeal Net Neutrality, the rules established over a decade ago ensuring that telecom companies couldn't prioritize content when delivering internet access to consumers. Most Americans were upset with the FCC ruling, and now some members of Congress are looking to reverse it.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has gathered the votes of 30 Senators, enough to force a vote on the FCC ruling, as is allowed under the Congressional Review Act. According to the act, only a simple majority of 50 votes is required to get past the Senate.

And if that was the end of the process, the resolution might have a chance of getting signed into law. Unfortunately, Markey's bill still has to pass the House and be signed into law by President Trump, both unlikely to happen."

www.popularmechanics.com

With enough phone calls, emails, letters, etc. the American people could overturn the FCC ad insure net neutrality forever. What are we waiting for? Are any posters here opposed to net neutrality, if so, present your argument. I doubt there will be any because there is just no case to support ending it. It's just a financial give away to big corporations and to political censorship. That's the part that bothers me most, internet censorship. I don't want to live in Russia or China, I want to live in America where freedom rings. Remember that?

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 10:13 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Net Neutrality is an innovation-stifling solution in search of a problem. Anti-trust laws already address what Net Neutrality was attempting to address, all the while keeping the internet free from government control.

But I applaud Danni for embracing the process - lobbying lawmakers to pass a bill that properly creates Net Neutrality.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 10:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#9 | Posted by bayviking

First off - I despise "deep state" references that get thrown around. Do individuals and groups within the Federal government have their own agendas that they do their best to follow? Certainly. Does the CIA do illegal things? NSA? etc? Certainly - they have been caught. The problem is the term is a vague catchall IMHO.

Call out what you see. And speaking frankly I don't think it is that "deep". Politicians want the war on drugs, the war on terror, Politicians continue to renew the NSA's power and such, etc. Our problem isn't so deep - it is money. Want to change things? Strip money from speech - let's put in the constitution or law that money does not equal Speech. While we are at it - that corporations are NOT people nor do they have the rights of people. Get corporations and lobbyists out of the business of law writing. Limit lobbyists.

The war on drugs is one of the biggest jokes of all time. It is all about profiting by investors and ensuring gooberment jobs to fight it. Then there is the Military Industrial Complex as a whole. Eisenhower himself called out the dangers and threat of the military industrial complex. He had tremendous insight on that. The thing is the "Deep state" is not some all powerful entity or even a small group with an agenda. It's pockets here and there working for either their best interests or what THEY think is best interests of the country. "Deep State" is a catchall boogeyman.

#12 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-09 11:01 AM | Reply

"Net Neutrality is an innovation-stifling solution in search of a problem. Anti-trust laws already address what Net Neutrality was attempting to address, all the while keeping the internet free from government control."

#11 | Posted by JeffJ

Innovation-stifling? How? That is such BS. How are other countries where Net Neutrality is the rule being stifled? Portugal is a good example of what happens when Internet is not Neutral. Innovation-stifling is going back to the likes of AOL and Prodigy which is exactly what this enables. The Anti-trust laws do not address this. They as far as I know address a symptom here and there. Internet needs to be open.

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-09 11:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

""Net Neutrality is an innovation-stifling solution in search of a problem. Anti-trust laws already address what Net Neutrality was attempting to address, all the while keeping the internet free from government control."

You prefer corporate control, and yes, real control over government preventing anyone from controlling the internet and then pretend that is government control. You're either dishonest of stupid, you choose.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:14 AM | Reply

"But I applaud Danni for embracing the process - lobbying lawmakers to pass a bill that properly creates Net Neutrality."

Public expressions of support are not lobbying. Lobbying is direct contact with legislators, often with big checks to assist them in their next campaign, in other words bribary. Illegal in Great Britain as it should be here. Lobbyists should be considered criminals and should be run out of our capital with the threat of violence if we find them there again. They are ruining our country, we should not allow this insult to democracy to continue so that a few fat cats can realize huge profits at the expense of the rest of us.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:17 AM | Reply

Innovation-stifling? How?

here is significant evidence that investment in infrastructure has gone down since the adoption of these rules.

For example, there is a study by a highly respected economist that says that among the top 12 Internet service providers in terms of size, investment is down by 5.6 percent, or several billion dollars, over the last two years.

And amongst smaller providers as well, just literally this week, 22 Internet service providers with 1,000 customers or less told us that these Title II regulations have kept them from getting the financing that they need to build out their networks. And, as they put it, these net neutrality regulations hang like a black cloud over our businesses.

And so what we're trying to do going forward is figure out a way that we can preserve that free and open Internet that consumers want and need and preserve that incentive to invest in the network that will ultimately benefit even more consumers going forward.


www.pbs.org

You prefer corporate control, and yes, real control over government preventing anyone from controlling the internet and then pretend that is government control. You're either dishonest of stupid, you choose.

#14 | POSTED BY DANNI

I prefer what has proven to work over the past 2 decades - an unprecedented level of innovation, speed, versatility, etc and all WITHOUT the heavy hand of government. Don't fix what ain't broken.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Public expressions of support are not lobbying. Lobbying is direct contact with legislators, often with big checks to assist them in their next campaign, in other words bribary. Illegal in Great Britain as it should be here. Lobbyists should be considered criminals and should be run out of our capital with the threat of violence if we find them there again. They are ruining our country, we should not allow this insult to democracy to continue so that a few fat cats can realize huge profits at the expense of the rest of us.

#15 | POSTED BY DANNI

If the federal government didn't have its hands into everything, you would see lobbying dry up organically. An over-reaching federal government causes lobbying. Treat the disease, not the symptom.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Public expressions of support are not lobbying. Lobbying is direct contact with legislators, often with big checks to assist them in their next campaign, in other words bribary. Illegal in Great Britain as it should be here. Lobbyists should be considered criminals and should be run out of our capital with the threat of violence if we find them there again. They are ruining our country, we should not allow this insult to democracy to continue so that a few fat cats can realize huge profits at the expense of the rest of us.
#15 | POSTED BY DANNI
If the federal government didn't have its hands into everything, you would see lobbying dry up organically. An over-reaching federal government causes lobbying. Treat the disease, not the symptom.
#17 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You've said some idiotic things but damn... You REALLY outdid yourself on this one.

This is akin to saying Health Insurance wouldn't be so expensive if people would just stop getting treatment!

Honestly, if the States were doing it, you'd see the lobbying there and it would be far more effective. And if NO ONE was doing it, then we wouldn't need lobbyists because companies could do whatever they wanted anyway.

Seriously think before you post.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-09 11:36 AM | Reply

"If the federal government didn't have its hands into everything, you would see lobbying dry up organically. An over-reaching federal government causes lobbying. Treat the disease, not the symptom."

Utter nonsense. The fact that is legal is what allows lobbying, that's why it is illegal in most countries.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 11:37 AM | Reply

Innovation-stifling? How?
here is significant evidence that investment in infrastructure has gone down since the adoption of these rules.
For example, there is a study by a highly respected economist that says that among the top 12 Internet service providers in terms of size, investment is down by 5.6 percent, or several billion dollars, over the last two years.
And amongst smaller providers as well, just literally this week, 22 Internet service providers with 1,000 customers or less told us that these Title II regulations have kept them from getting the financing that they need to build out their networks. And, as they put it, these net neutrality regulations hang like a black cloud over our businesses.
And so what we're trying to do going forward is figure out a way that we can preserve that free and open Internet that consumers want and need and preserve that incentive to invest in the network that will ultimately benefit even more consumers going forward.
www.pbs.org
You prefer corporate control, and yes, real control over government preventing anyone from controlling the internet and then pretend that is government control. You're either dishonest of stupid, you choose.
#14 | POSTED BY DANNI
I prefer what has proven to work over the past 2 decades - an unprecedented level of innovation, speed, versatility, etc and all WITHOUT the heavy hand of government. Don't fix what ain't broken.
#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

If you can't understand we are dealing with an entirely different IT infrastructure then ten years ago, you are not smart enough to post on this site.

Quit while you are only way behind.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-09 11:38 AM | Reply

If you can't understand we are dealing with an entirely different IT infrastructure then ten years ago, you are not smart enough to post on this site....

#20 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Of course we are. It's far better and more advanced than it was 10 years ago and it happened without the imposition of net neutrality. In the 2 years it was in effect we saw a decline in investment.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Honestly, if the States were doing it, you'd see the lobbying there and it would be far more effective. And if NO ONE was doing it, then we wouldn't need lobbyists because companies could do whatever they wanted anyway.
Seriously think before you post.

#18 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Lobbying should be done at the state level. It's most effective when an environment of cronyism exists. If certain states want to set up fiefdoms, it will be short-lived success followed by intermediate and long-term failure as states with a more competitive environment pass them by.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 11:44 AM | Reply

The real reason Republicans have always been state's righters is that state officials cost less to bribe than national officials. It's as simple as that.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-09 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the federal government didn't have its hands into everything, you would see lobbying dry up organically. An over-reaching federal government causes lobbying. Treat the disease, not the symptom.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-09 12:44 PM | Reply

The real reason Republicans harp about States Rights is they have been fighting the Federal Government's enforcement of constitutional human rights on the black population and other disadvantaged people. They want the right to take advantage of the 90% for profit. They have succeeded in some ways, depriving many of the right to a decent education, health care, loans and jobs. Just how narrow and hypocritical this agenda is revealed in Sessions response to any legalization of marijuana at the State level. Suddenly State's Rights is out the window. But, a politician will never speak in these terms.

#25 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-09 01:07 PM | Reply

"Suddenly State's Rights is out the window. But, a politician will never speak in these terms."

Vouchers. Where did that idea come from? From Christian academies that sprung up when the feds integrated the public schools across the south and the parents of those white children didn't want to have to pay for those private academies...so they have been demanding vouchers ever since. Charter schools? Businesses that saw vouchers as a business model, profit as a motive to destroy te public schools. Virtually all of privatization is a cynical attempt to take away public services, like public schools, so that the few can profit and the many can have reduced services and the actual providers of those services can be paid less.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If you can't understand we are dealing with an entirely different IT infrastructure then ten years ago, you are not smart enough to post on this site....

#20 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Of course we are. It's far better and more advanced than it was 10 years ago and it happened without the imposition of net neutrality. In the 2 years it was in effect we saw a decline in investment.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ

What a load of Malarkey.

The Federal Communications Commission voted to reclassify broadband Internet as a telecommunication service in order to PRESERVE net neutrality(a free and open Internet where all web traffic is treated the same).

So the FACT is that Net Neutrality existed before the FCC voted to PRESERVE it.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-09 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lobbying should be done at the state level. It's most effective when an environment of cronyism exists. If certain states want to set up fiefdoms, it will be short-lived success followed by intermediate and long-term failure as states with a more competitive environment pass them by.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-09 11:44 AM | Reply

You are advocating not allowing the citizenry to advocate their government politicians at the federal level. You are in essence denying the people their voice.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-09 02:05 PM | Reply

"Vouchers. Where did that idea come from?" - #26 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-09 01:37 PM

In the mid-1970s, if a politician proposed giving taxpayer dollars to private schools he (or course it would be a "he") would have been laughed out of office.

Today such a thing is called "vouchers."

The quintessential example of the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The steps of the Window are:

Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
The real fascinating story is how the Window is moved.

#29 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-09 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#26 Danni: "From Christian academies that sprung up when the feds integrated the public schools across the south.."

From my view, those academies sprung up when people of differing ethnic backgrounds decided to stop sending their kids to substandard public schools. I've been involved in such schools and it might just shock you that they were truly multicultural. Nothing racist about them, other than a knee-jerk reaction.

#30 | Posted by AKat at 2018-01-09 04:52 PM | Reply

Akat,

To the extent public schools are substandard, that is the responsibility of the school board that repeatedly act to redistribute money and resources in a racist manner. Stop pretending there is no class warfare, waged as a hidden agenda.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-10 07:18 AM | Reply

As long as schools are funded by local property taxes, poor areas will have poor schools and rich areas will have rich schools.

It is self-reinforcing as the poor will have poorer education and fewer opportunities to become not poor

#32 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-10 02:32 PM | Reply

"The US is a backwater in the developed world when it comes to Digital communications."

Because digital communications companies are more profitable that way.

Plenty of local broadband initiatives have been made illegal at the State or Federal level by legislators serving telecoms over their human constituents.

I mean really, what established business wants competition from some startup? It's an existential threat. So they fight to keep what's theirs. And we are the losers.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-10 02:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort